Manufacturers - How Do You Answer This
This is one aspect of why I am leery of an aluminum framed camper, not to mention a newer, expensive camper. Of course the extremely poor quality craftsmanship could be duplicated in a wood-framed cam...
Forum Discussion
Relative to quality and how it relates to American manufacturers:
IMHO, the bulk of criticism about quality has to rest with management. It's management that decides what materials are going to be used. It's management that decides the design. It's management that decides the rate at which something is produced. It's management that decides whether to respond to criticisms or not. They have total control of the things that result in good quality - or not.
But I have a slightly different take on the Japanese in the 1970's. I think they went the "quality" route: a) Because they really, really had quality problems, and b) Because it was a way to differentiate their products from others.
It might seem a bit racist, but the Japanese were not noted for their innovation - and their products reflected that. In the 1960's the term "Japanese" meant poor quality, cheaply made, uninspiring products. They had to do something. We now look at China in much the same way - poor quality, cheaply made, uninspiring products.
There also seems to be critical mass sort of thing where the competition either goes out of business or gets absorbed, bought, merged, etc. What is left is a few very good manufacturers who compete - as opposed to a large number of manufacturers each with their own niche.
Remember Studebaker? Or Packard? How about Nash, Hudson? These were competitors for Ford and GM.
They talk about the "Big 3", but #3 isn't so big and isn't so healthy.
And, Yes! Our expectations have changed dramatically. We now expect to buy a product and have no issues at all. We expect to use it in all sorts of ways, and we expect the manufacturer to have designed out every possible hazard. And we expect it to be inexpensive.
The US market is one of the largest and most difficult markets to penetrate - but if one does successfully, it can be quite profitable.
IMHO, the bulk of criticism about quality has to rest with management. It's management that decides what materials are going to be used. It's management that decides the design. It's management that decides the rate at which something is produced. It's management that decides whether to respond to criticisms or not. They have total control of the things that result in good quality - or not.
But I have a slightly different take on the Japanese in the 1970's. I think they went the "quality" route: a) Because they really, really had quality problems, and b) Because it was a way to differentiate their products from others.
It might seem a bit racist, but the Japanese were not noted for their innovation - and their products reflected that. In the 1960's the term "Japanese" meant poor quality, cheaply made, uninspiring products. They had to do something. We now look at China in much the same way - poor quality, cheaply made, uninspiring products.
There also seems to be critical mass sort of thing where the competition either goes out of business or gets absorbed, bought, merged, etc. What is left is a few very good manufacturers who compete - as opposed to a large number of manufacturers each with their own niche.
Remember Studebaker? Or Packard? How about Nash, Hudson? These were competitors for Ford and GM.
They talk about the "Big 3", but #3 isn't so big and isn't so healthy.
And, Yes! Our expectations have changed dramatically. We now expect to buy a product and have no issues at all. We expect to use it in all sorts of ways, and we expect the manufacturer to have designed out every possible hazard. And we expect it to be inexpensive.
The US market is one of the largest and most difficult markets to penetrate - but if one does successfully, it can be quite profitable.
